So, even if it was caused by a technical problem with the car, it would still be considered negligence?

If it helps, think about who's the least-cost avoider on whom you would like to place the damages arising from the incident: the car owner who should get his brakes checked regularly or the lady innocently and legally crossing the street? If someone has to pay, I think common sense would say the driver.

But more generally, nothing is ever a certainty in law. That's why we have judges and juries...to use their expertise (or lack thereof) to fill in the gaps/reconcile conflict facts. The default rule is to send the case to the jury and let them weigh everything.

ETA: And if it was a design malfunction with the car, then the driver could ask the judge to join the car company, or he could sue the company in a separate action.

If it helps, think about who's the least-cost avoider on whom you would like to place the damages arising from the incident: the car owner who should get his brakes checked regularly or the lady innocently and legally crossing the street? If someone has to pay, I think common sense would say the driver.

Indeed, and if it's wear and tear defect that does it, so it should be. If it's a production fault, I would assume it is possible to hold the seller / producer liable in some way?

Quote

But more generally, nothing is ever a certainty in law. That's why we have judges and juries...to use their expertise (or lack thereof) to fill in the gaps/reconcile conflict facts. The default rule is to send the case to the jury and let them weigh everything.

True, and I suppose if defect was an issue it'd be in the question anyway. I expect that vehicle controls are standard procedure after accidents like this.

Quote

ETA: And if it was a design malfunction with the car, then the driver could ask the judge to join the car company, or he could sue the company in a separate action.

I expect that vehicle controls are standard procedure after accidents like this.

What do you mean by "vehicle controls"? If you're talking about a company taking action to correct the defect after an accident, evidence of that would probably be barred in court (as a subsequent remedial measure).

I had Evidence the first day, then property and today (Saturday) I had Con Law

good grief.

I did good on the evidence portion because I just took that class last fall

property ... about 45%

But today in Con law I TOTALLY bombed. I didn't realize that Con law on the bar was largely topics that were taught in federal courts class which, of course, I didn't take and first amendment, which I didn't take either. I randomly knew the establishment clause stuff but the rest...not a chance. I naively thought con law would be about...what I learned in con law. But...not so much.

I expect that vehicle controls are standard procedure after accidents like this.

What do you mean by "vehicle controls"? If you're talking about a company taking action to correct the defect after an accident, evidence of that would probably be barred in court (as a subsequent remedial measure).

Controls probably bad word, inspected perhaps better? In such as if a car rolls over me, it would likely get inspected whether there was some defect on the car. And I would assume the car owner would like to get this inspected as well, to avoid taking the blame himself

I had Evidence the first day, then property and today (Saturday) I had Con Law

good grief.

I did good on the evidence portion because I just took that class last fall

property ... about 45%

But today in Con law I TOTALLY bombed. I didn't realize that Con law on the bar was largely topics that were taught in federal courts class which, of course, I didn't take and first amendment, which I didn't take either. I randomly knew the establishment clause stuff but the rest...not a chance. I naively thought con law would be about...what I learned in con law. But...not so much.

Anyway...good luck to all. Torts tomorrow, Fun times.

We didn't do First Amendment in my con law class . 13 classes on equal protection.

So, even if it was caused by a technical problem with the car, it would still be considered negligence?

The question gives the procedural point in the trial: "At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case-in-chief...". The plaintiff wants to have the defendant found liable, and won't be presenting information that helps the defendant. It would be up to the defendant to bring up issues such as a technical problem.

My last day was evidence. That was a painful day. I missed torts due to a final; I'll be making up that class next week.

RIL was one of the easier tort questions for me to answer. Once you learn the doctrine, it is easy to see it set up in a fact pattern. All of the 0Ls and other onlookers, don't freak out. If you take PMBR you should be fine. I thought it was very helpful in terms of getting you accustomed to studying all day, and letting me know where my weak areas are on the multistate. I'm glad I invested the $620.00.

For the 0L's, res ipsa loquitur is latin for "the thing speaks for itself" - its a tort law doctrine that allows a jury to infer negligence where you don't quite have all the pieces to the puzzle in situations where negligence must have happened because things ordinarily wouldn't have ended up how they did unless somebody was negligenct - like the car rolling down the hill.

RIL was one of the easier tort questions for me to answer. Once you learn the doctrine, it is easy to see it set up in a fact pattern. All of the 0Ls and other onlookers, don't freak out. If you take PMBR you should be fine. I thought it was very helpful in terms of getting you accustomed to studying all day, and letting me know where my weak areas are on the multistate. I'm glad I invested the $620.00.

w00t! Post a crim question...I had an awful prof for that and will probably have to learn from scratch.

Alright MBE Whiz Kid, if you can get this one then you are the man. This goes for the rest of you too (besides SMU and Slacker of course)

Belle and Ramirez were unemployed basket weavers who had recently been terminated from their jobs. As they were commiserating their misfortune, Belle thought of a great "get rich quick" scheme to defraud his insurance company. Belle told Ramirez that he was insured under a State Farm policy covering personal injuries. He suggested that Ramirez shoot him in the arm in a fake robbery attempt to recover damages for his injury. In this jurisdiction it is a felony to file a false insurance claim.

As part of their scheme, Ramirez went to Belle's home one evening with a loaded pistol. They were standing together in the kitchen discussing how to best implement their plan. Finally, Belle told Ramirez to shoot him in the arm and then flee from the residence. After being shot, Belle planned to call 911 and have an ambulance transport him to the hospital where he would be treated for his wound. Following Belle's instruction, Ramirez proceeded to shoot Belle in the arm. Thereupon, Belle telephoned 911 to report the shooting and requested an ambulance immediately be sent to his home.

Believing that Belle only suffered a superficial arm wound, Ramirez drove home after the shooting. The bullet, however, severed an artery and Belle began to bleed quite profusely. Before the ambulance arrived, Belle lost consciousness from the loss of blood and passed out on the kitchen floor. When the paramedics arrived at Belle's home, they were unable to revive him and he was pronounced dead at the scene.

Which of the following is the most serious crime for which Ramirez should be found guilty?

"A lawyer's either a social engineer or a parasite on society. A social engineer is a highly skilled...lawyer who understands the Constitution of the U.S. and knows how to explore its uses in the solving of problems of local communities and in bettering [our] conditions."Charles H. Houston